Just reported on the Herd

[Erial_Lion]

Wrong, the NCAA Roughing Rule specifically states that it ONLY APPLIES to hits coming after "the ball has OBVIOUSLY been thrown". Here is the actual written NCAA Rule:

College: 9-1-9​

SECTION 1. Personal Fouls​

Roughing the Passer​

ARTICLE 9.​

a. No defensive player shall unnecessarily rough a passer, when it is obvious the ball has been thrown. The following actions are illegal, but not limited to:​

You're reading comprehension of the ACTUAL Rule is faulty just as it was in 2005 regarding the need of Avante's entire "first foot landing" being in-bounds for it to be a good catch. Only you could claim the following clear statement needs "interpretation" LMAO: "No defensive player shall unnecessarily rough a passer, when it is obvious the ball has been thrown."

BTW, there was no "forcible contact to the head" after the initial clearly legal hit which was not "high" or illegal in any way, but you just keep right on making bullsheet circumstances up.

You can throw around names and insults, but here is the actual rule (if anyone else cares to look, it's rule 9-1-9-a from this year's rule book)...read the note at the bottom and maybe you'll understand why you don't understand how to interpret it.

Roughing the Passer
ARTICLE 9 a No defensive player shall unnecessarily rough a passer, when it is obvious the ball has been thrown The following actions are illegal, but not limited to:

1 Targeting fouls as noted in Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4

2 Forcible contact to the head or neck area that does not meet the requirements of Rule 9-1-4 (also reference Rule 9-1-2)

3 Forcible contact that is avoidable after it is obvious the ball has left the passer’s hand (Exception: A defensive player who is blocked by a Team A player with a force so that they have no opportunity to avoid contact with the passer However, this does not relieve the defensive player of responsibility for personal fouls as described elsewhere in this section)

4 Forcibly driving the passer to the ground and landing on the passer with action that punishes the player

5 Any action that is a personal foul as described elsewhere in this section

Note: For 1, 2, and 4 above, this includes contact to an offensive player in a passing posture.

 

[Erial_Lion]

My final point on the matter...it would be one thing Bushy if you stated "tough call, I don't think that contact was forcible". It's another when you accuse the referee of inventing penalties, going on about how the NCAA doesn't have anything in the rules about high hits to the QB outside of targeting, etc. The NCAA obviously offers additional protection to the QB, and this is the exact type of instance where we see it called week after week.

Apologies to everyone else for cluttering things up, but I just can't stand people that don't understand the rules going on and on about how the ref must be corrupt because they do actually understand the rules. And then twisting in circles and moving the goalposts when the actual rules are explained. It's a weakness of mine that I let it get me on tilt.

 

[kgilbert78]

You missed the steak "seasoning" debate, apparently.

On another board, we had the "is filet, steak?' controversy..../

 

[PSUSignore]

Not saying this didn't happen, but why would Kraft and Franklin even interact at all after the game in the vicinity of the locker room? Wouldn't Kraft ask to see Franklin in his office or elsewhere?

 

[PSUPetch]

Is that accurate? I thought he hung around looking around while waiting for everyone to come over for the alma mater. Then, after it, he went straight to the locker room following the players. But haven't seen video to confirm it.

Nope. After the Alma mater, he stood on the 15 or 20 yard line and hugged each of the remaining players that were still on the field. One by one, each one came over and gave him an extended hug. Sitting in the stands, we all knew he was done.

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

My final point on the matter...it would be one thing Bushy if you stated "tough call, I don't think that contact was forcible". It's another when you accuse the referee of inventing penalties, going on about how the NCAA doesn't have anything in the rules about high hits to the QB outside of targeting, etc. The NCAA obviously offers additional protection to the QB, and this is the exact type of instance where we see it called week after week.

Apologies to everyone else for cluttering things up, but I just can't stand people that don't understand the rules going on and on about how the ref must be corrupt because they do actually understand the rules. And then twisting in circles and moving the goalposts when the actual rules are explained. It's a weakness of mine that I let it get me on tilt.

Get this straight you obfuscating liar - there was no LATE HIT (which is what the rule you cited is about) - in addition there was no forcible contact to the head or neck area (which would have been covered by the ACTUAL applicable rule - the NCAA Targetting Rule for Protected Players). Again, NO late hit ((the Rule you referenced) AND NO forcible contact to the head or neck area which would have been covered by the ACTUAL applicable Rule I referenced. It was a completely bullshat made-up typically corrupt call by hack b1g clown crew.

Your continual defense of the b1g hacks corrupt calls (just as you did in 2005 with the Avant call - claiming the rule doesn't require his entire "first foot landing" to be in-bounds - just the first point of contact... which is absurdly wrong. Then ignoring the fact that the play was not even Reviewed by the cheating b1g Officials despite the play being a Mandatory Replay Review under the NCAA Rulebook at the time... is quite telling as to the lengths you will go to to attempt to cover for this leagues clear ******** and corruption).

 

[Nittering Nabob]

@Erial_Lion @JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws

I awarded each of you one (1) “like”vote because I enjoy passionate debate.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Get this straight you obfuscating liar - there was no LATE HIT (which is what the rule you cited is about) -

Again, if you read the note at the bottom of the rule, you would have seen "Note: For 1, 2, and 4 above, this includes contact to an offensive player in a passing posture." That means #2, which is what applied in this situation, is applied both for hits after the ball is released (which it actually was in this instance, or in the instance of the video I posted with the NCAA explaining the rule), and for hits as the QB is getting ready to pass.

Then ignoring the fact that the play was not even Reviewed by the cheating b1g Officials despite the play being a Mandatory Replay Review under the NCAA Rulebook at the time... is quite telling as to the lengths you will go to to attempt to cover for this leagues clear ******** and corruption).

Obviously not correct, since the NCAA didn't sponsor Instant Replay in 2005. Anything replay related was handled by rules put out by the Big Ten Conference.

And to actually state what I said about the Avant play...the rules weren't clear in 2005 as to how a toe-heel should be handled. However, the NCAA since tightened up the rules to clarify it. So looking at the rules today and applying them to 2005 isn't a valid application.


Again, I'd like to just let it go at this point, since you clearly aren't a sane person (or maybe I'm the crazy one and the rest of the world calls each other "douche nozzles" and "shizholians")...but as long as you keep calling me a liar when I'm giving factual information, I'll keep defending it. You don't understand the rules, and continue running in circles and move the goalposts...this started when you claimed that it's impossible to have a high hit to the QB called as roughing the passer in NCAA football, since the only option is targeting and the NCAA has no rule around high hits. Ready to admit that you completely whiffed on that statement?

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

Again, if you read the note at the bottom of the rule, you would have seen "Note: For 1, 2, and 4 above, this includes contact to an offensive player in a passing posture." That means #2, which is what applied in this situation, is applied both for hits after the ball is released (which it actually was in this instance, or in the instance of the video I posted with the NCAA explaining the rule), and for hits as the QB is getting ready to pass.


Obviously not correct, since the NCAA didn't sponsor Instant Replay in 2005. Anything replay related was handled by rules put out by the Big Ten Conference.

And to actually state what I said about the Avant play...the rules weren't clear in 2005 as to how a toe-heel should be handled. However, the NCAA since tightened up the rules to clarify it. So looking at the rules today and applying them to 2005 isn't a valid application.


Again, I'd like to just let it go at this point, since you clearly aren't a sane person (or maybe I'm the crazy one and the rest of the world calls each other "douche nozzles" and "shizholians")...but as long as you keep calling me a liar when I'm giving factual information, I'll keep defending it. You don't understand the rules, and continue running in circles and move the goalposts...this started when you claimed that it's impossible to have a high hit to the QB called as roughing the passer in NCAA football, since the only option is targeting and the NCAA has no rule around high hits. Ready to admit that you completely whiffed on that statement?

You're a laughable clown - the rules have not changed since 2005 regarding the need for the first foot landing being fully in-bounds when the first body part contacting the ground is either of the receiver's feet. Additionally, the NCAA did approve Replay Review for all Conferences for the 2005 Season - not only approved it but recommended all D1A Conferences use it (although did not make it mandatory because some schools/conferences may not have had infrastructure required). Replay Review was used by all the BCS Conferences at the time. The b1g experimental year was 2004, not 2005. And under the Replay Review Rule that existed in 2005 (which absolutely was approved by the NCAA, recommended for all Conferences and used by all BCS Conferences) the Avant catch was a Mandatory Review.

But keep making up your laughable bullsheeeet that Avant's catch was a good catch under the 2005 NCAA Rulebook - it wasn't and never was a legal catch under any NCAA Rulebook before or after 2005. The Rulebook clearly stated that the "first foot landing" must be in-bounds for a play where the first body part landing is either of a receiver's feet (it never said only a portion of the first foot landing) - and everyone knows this but you liar. The NCAA Rule has ALWAYS required ONE FOOT DOWN and any part of that foot landing OB nullifies the catch - was the Rule in 2005, was the Rule prior to 2005 and still remains the Rule when the receiver's first body part landing is one of their feet! But keep claiming otherwise, it is extremely revealing as to the exact type of obfuscating liar you are.

 

[AvgUser]

What incentive would Franklin have to do that?
He was going to get every last penny and I don't blame him. It's not his fault we have the dumbest buyout ever.

ATM say hold my beer

 

[PAgeologist]

No he didn’t. Bush league move if Kraft tried to engage Franklin before he spoke to his players after a loss like this.

Sorry. It was a projection of what I thought could have happened. I did imply it was fact by not making that clear. My bad.

But i agree, if Kraft blew up on Franklin in front of the team, that was a very unprofessional move on his part.

 

[Moogy]

Jeez ... what happened to Tom's alleged "3 back and forths during a dispute and you must end the debate, or face my wrath" edict, that he supposedly advertised many times in the past and expects everyone to know?

 

[PSU87]

Jeez ... what happened to Tom's alleged "3 back and forths during a dispute and you must end the debate, or face my wrath" edict, that he supposedly advertised many times in the past and expects everyone to know?

I think theres a Bushwood clause in the rule

 

[LMTLION]

The rules debate here….

 

[PSUHarry]

This was just incredibly ironic. During the course of Franklin's tenure there was an accumulation of events that led to the fanbase questioning Franklin's ability to be an effective game coach / manager. Blowing two fourth quarter double digit leads to tOSU in 2017 and 2018 and at the top of the list is Devyn Ford not taking a knee at Indiana in 2020 to run out the clock. There were other questionable decisions along the way which were not so apparent as the I/U debacle which eroded fan support.

That last one was on Ford, commom knowledge it was communicated by several coaches and within the huddle. Ford got caught up in the moment. He knew it as soon as he scored. His team mates did not come over to congratulate him. They knew and he did too. 2017 and 2018 OSU was coaching. Too conservative and if I recall the OSU QBs also had career stats in the 4th qtr.

 

[Connorpozlee]

There were 3 coaches who had better records over the past 5 years, Day, Smart and DeBoer. I am sorry, if that is your definition of mediocrity then you have to recalibrate.

That’s great, but if you watched this team this year (and I’m assuming you did) you saw a team that was not prepared to win every week. We did three times because we played teams with far, far inferior talent but we didn’t play well in those games either. I saw a coach who was checked out, defeated. It happens. Sometimes a coach has run his course and it’s time to move on.
At some point Franklin will talk and I’m sure he will say how he still wishes he had the job and how motivated he was to win a championship at Penn State. But after watching him coach that UCLA game, I knew it was over for him. I didn’t know the program would actually fire him, but I knew he was done. Hs style is all about energy and passion and that was very clearly gone from him. When that happens, the only right thing to do is to remove him from the job. It was not going to get better going forward.

 

[PSUHarry]

Sorry. It was a projection of what I thought could have happened. I did imply it was fact by not making that clear. My bad.

But i agree, if Kraft blew up on Franklin in front of the team, that was a very unprofessional move on his part.

There are no facts supporting that Kraft blew up on Franklin in front of the team.

 

[Bison13]

Sorry, it's a weakness of mine to get annoyed at people that don't understand the rules yet ***** about bad calls/corruption. Stems from dealing with it often in real life ("that ball hit the plate blue, that's a foul ball", or "that can't be a hit by pitch, the hands are part of the bat").

If you're going to ***** about actual bad or close calls, great. But if you don't actually understand the rule book, then stop complaining about those that actually do.

what about my favorite: tie goes to the runner haha

 

[Erial_Lion]

what about my favorite: tie goes to the runner haha

 

[PAgeologist]

There are no facts supporting that Kraft blew up on Franklin in front of the team.

I know that. I made a mistake in implying that it was fact.

 

[BobPSU92]

There are no facts supporting that Kraft blew up on Franklin in front of the team.

Then we have our work cut out for us, don’t we?

 

[ChiefJusticeMarshall]

Whatever....get busy trying I guess. As a fan, id rather them fail trying to be the best than accept status quo and 10 wins(Franklin's ceiling).

He had 11, 11, 11 and 13 wins in his last 4.

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

He had 11, 11, 11 and 13 wins in his last 4.

Any of those v big boys? A nope

 

[Ram20]

He had 11, 11, 11 and 13 wins in his last 4.

You're right, more wins than 10....just not big ones. No upsets

 

[SRURock24]

This was just incredibly ironic. During the course of Franklin's tenure there was an accumulation of events that led to the fanbase questioning Franklin's ability to be an effective game coach / manager. Blowing two fourth quarter double digit leads to tOSU in 2017 and 2018 and at the top of the list is Devyn Ford not taking a knee at Indiana in 2020 to run out the clock. There were other questionable decisions along the way which were not so apparent as the I/U debacle which eroded fan support.

Franklin suffered much the same fate as John Cooper. Had some great teams Just couldn’t get by tOSU just like Cooper couldn’t get by Michigan. If he wins 2-3 of those big games 2017,2018, 2024 etc. he is still the coach regardless of this year. Sad considering all the good he did.

 

[PSUcup]

He had 11, 11, 11 and 13 wins in his last 4.

Who did? Not James Franklin …

 

[taryn]

what about my favorite: tie goes to the runner haha

no such thing as a bad call !!!!! those BASTARDS KNOW EXACTY WHAT THEY ARE DOING!!!!!!!!!

 

[Connorpozlee]

Who did? Not James Franklin …

Last four seasons (not counting this year’s 3-3):
13-3
10-3
11-2
7-6

 

[NittanyBuff]

Not saying this didn't happen, but why would Kraft and Franklin even interact at all after the game in the vicinity of the locker room? Wouldn't Kraft ask to see Franklin in his office or elsewhere?

Who knows, but I heard it happened as well, some will believe it some not, doesn't matter one way or the other now.

 

[PSUaddict]

You can throw around names and insults, but here is the actual rule (if anyone else cares to look, it's rule 9-1-9-a from this year's rule book)...read the note at the bottom and maybe you'll understand why you don't understand how to interpret it.

Roughing the Passer
ARTICLE 9 a No defensive player shall unnecessarily rough a passer, when it is obvious the ball has been thrown The following actions are illegal, but not limited to:

1 Targeting fouls as noted in Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4

2 Forcible contact to the head or neck area that does not meet the requirements of Rule 9-1-4 (also reference Rule 9-1-2)

3 Forcible contact that is avoidable after it is obvious the ball has left the passer’s hand (Exception: A defensive player who is blocked by a Team A player with a force so that they have no opportunity to avoid contact with the passer However, this does not relieve the defensive player of responsibility for personal fouls as described elsewhere in this section)

4 Forcibly driving the passer to the ground and landing on the passer with action that punishes the player

5 Any action that is a personal foul as described elsewhere in this section

Note: For 1, 2, and 4 above, this includes contact to an offensive player in a passing posture.

Holy egos. It wasnt a penalty. Bad call. Case closed

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

Holy egos. It wasnt a penalty. Bad call. Case closed

You're talking to a b1g shill, douche troll who claimed at the time (and still claims in this thread) that the 2005 Avant catch was the correct call - despite it being proven 1000x over that it was a clearly wrong call that was not Replay Reviewed despite the play in question being a Mandatory Replay Review at the time.... Yea, no corruption or international malfeasance there -- clearly wrong call on the play and the no Replay Review despite the Replay Rule at the time saying the play was a Mandatory Review as it occurred in the last 2 minutes of the game on a catch on sideline where it was not clear the receiver came down in bounds. But this a-hole b1g troll defends the call to this day - just like he is defending this utterly bullsheeeet call.

 

[Erial_Lion]

You're talking to a b1g shill, douche troll who claimed at the time (and still claims in this thread) that the 2005 Avant catch was the correct call - despite it being proven 1000x over that it was a clearly wrong call that was not Replay Reviewed despite the play in question being a Mandatory Replay Review at the time.... Yea, no corruption or international malfeasance there -- clearly wrong call on the play and the no Replay Review despite the Replay Rule at the time saying the play was a Mandatory Review as it occurred in the last 2 minutes of the game on a catch on sideline where it was not clear the receiver came down in bounds. But this a-hole b1g troll defends the call to this day - just like he is defending this utterly bullsheeeet call.

Not actually true…and I’ve tried moving along several times, but for whatever reason @Tom McAndrew gives you free rein to make personal attacks, insults, etc. And while I hate to keep cluttering up the board, as long as you’re going to be allowed to blast me time and again, I’ll respond again.

The Avant catch in 2005 was a tough call against us, but officiating forums debated the rule since it wasn’t clear. The NCAA tightened up the rule book and even added an Approved Ruling to cover it since we were one of a few games that had it. But claims that the NCAA rules mandated it be reviewed are incorrect…replay was still handled at the Big 10 level in 2005 (as with all conferences that partook). And nothing called out “you must review xxx”.